6 ms·

>>-like the obesity epidemic--rather than cars. The key here from a government standpoint is Obesity impacts the life of the obese person only. Where as bad d

by syshum 5y ago

>>-like the obesity epidemic--rather than cars. The key here from a government standpoint is Obesity impacts the life of the obese person only. Where as bad driving will kill other people, infact often does not kill the bad driver instead harms innocent people around the bad driver Government has the ethical mandate to protect you from other citizens, not to protect your from your own bad choices. Government has no ethical position for which to control the type and quantity of food I choose to consume the only ethical control the government would have is around food safety for people selling food to others. Ice Cream is perfectly safe to eat as long as you are not eating a gallon a day.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Government has the ethical mandate to protect you from other citizens, not to protect your from your own bad choices. What about the choices of the food industry?
inglor_cz 5y ago
Even in the U.S., the government would be better off with a leaner population. The government pays some fraction of healthcare (VA, Medicare, Medicaid). Also, the military would like to have a better pool of recruits.
- syshum 5y ago
  Thank you for highlighting why I will never support government healthcare. I do not wish to live in a world where the government is monitoring and regulating what I have for breakfast, "for my own good" No thank you, I will pass on that kind of dystopia
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    I would reply to this, but my government is monitoring my blood pressure and taking me to an intervention camp if it gets too high. (Apologies for the sarcasm.)
  - b112 5y ago
    The is a false equivalency. Having the government acting as insurer, has nothing to do with your breakfast.
    - syshum 5y ago
      Did you read the comment I replied to, Their exact statement was that the government has a compelling interest in curbing obesity because they pay for health care.. jeez, context matter.... Further it is completely logical conclusion that if the US government became in insurer, the next step in that would be to attempt mandate health food choices in order to curb runways costs that would result from such a program
      - b112 5y ago
        Your last sentence indicates my statement was relevant. Secondly, the entire West, outside of the US, has state run health care, and in every case: * no one is doing what you suggest * society gets better health care * costs are reduced via so many other means An example? Governments negotiate as large-blocks of purchasers for medication. If corporations do not play ball, then laws can be changed to allow for a reduction in IP rights, length of patents, and so on. Note that this is not some silly "Stop companies from making profit", but instead, "Stop companies from making insane, over the top, crazy profit at the expensive of poor people dying". National governments also counter the above, with a restriction on development costs. For example, state run Universities being used to assist in clinical trials, grants for developing certain types of medication, the goal being to reduce risk/profit cost for drug manufacturers, which cite such high profits as necessary due to development costs. There are so many ways to win/win, without letting people die because they lost their job. There is also a societal balance, and much like stopping companies from dumping toxic waste, or clear cutting forests (instead of selective cuts), the needs of society must be balanced with the needs for free enterprise. This is not anti-profit, any more than not having the lot next to your house, become a dumping ground for nuclear waste. I know all of this seems horrifying, yet bizarrely, the rest of the West seems to handle it quite well. You might also want to ask yourself, who benefits from scare mongering over such things? You benefits from making you think and absurd idea, that your bacon will disappear because the government pays for health care? Who? Oh wait, the for-profit, out of control, massive lobbying health-care providers in the US? Yes, they want you to feel fear.
  - soperj 5y ago
    Every Western country on earth aside from the US has public healthcare, none of them monitor or regulate what you have for breakfast.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    The government already regulates what you have for breakfast. Think about how many federal organizations are out there regulating every aspect of food production. The fact that you don't realize this is indicative of how unfounded your fears are about government over-reach. Additionally, the Free Market provides health insurance companies with the power to charge extra who smoke, don't exercise, or otherwise practice unhealthy habits. I have to upload fitness data, get annual physicals, and do a bunch of other little things not required of people on Medicaid. Anti-government people forget that they have a lot more influence over government organizations than they do private ones. If people are pissed at the government, they have elected reps with the power to solve the issue. If they get pissed at a private org, there's not much that can be done unless what they are doing is illegal (even then, it will take years to remedy).
    - syshum 5y ago
      >> The fact that you don't realize this is indicative of how unfounded your fears are about government over-reach. This is very amusing... maybe I do realize it, maybe I believe the government is already over reaching, and maybe, just maybe I oppose many of the things you are talking about. Maybe I do not want to see government expanded even more. >>Additionally, the Free Market provides health insurance companies with the power to charge extra who smoke, don't exercise, or otherwise practice unhealthy habits. Ok, and... You seem to think I would be opposed to this, I am not. I am opposed to government not voluntary exchange. To the extent the government requires insurance or the concept of insurance for healthcare to take place in the US is the core of the problem, not Freed markets. Nothing really in healthcare is free market though, it is ironic that you claim I do not understand the number of regulations on food production,but them proclaim Healthcare and/or Health Insurance are a free market. That is laughable.... >>Anti-government people forget that they have a lot more influence over government organizations than they do private ones. Martin Gilens and Benjamin Paige would disagree with you. Their analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. [1] [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Perhaps the governments of the world should stop subsidizing sugar production... It is not as if we suffer from a lack of cheap sugar, and elimination of such subsidy would not infringe on anyone's privacy or civil rights.
madengr 5y ago
[dead]
mdorazio 5y ago
I don’t really agree with your first point. Obesity puts a huge strain on the healthcare system, increasing wait times and friction for people at a healthy weight who need services. It also increases health insurance premiums on healthy weight people.
- chucksta 5y ago
  It also skews whats viewed as "normal". Its a lot easier to reconcile you are overweight when you appear to be the same weight as everyone else
- celtain 5y ago
  I'm not sure this is correct. People who avoid obesity-related health issues often just get old enough to suffer from some other, even more expensive disease. A cancer patient requires more expensive care than a typical diabetic or heart disease patient, and the prolonged costs of caring for someone suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's can be greater still. I'm not saying obesity is good for society (prolonging years of healthy life is a worthwhile goal on its own), but the impact on the healthcare system itself isn't necessarily so simple.
  - ultimape 5y ago
    Obesity is a risk factor for many types of cancer and also risk for Alzheimer's because both are tied to the hip with blood sugar problems. Most of the older folks to who get cancer and age related neurodegenerative disease also seem to succumb to age related diabetes symptoms and poor insulin. These things aren't separate-able as cleanly as you suggest.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  I thought actually life-cutting health choices like obesity and smoking are actually less strenuous because they die earlier and faster. They're cheaper too because of this in the long run. Not to say that there aren't other reasons why we should combat obesity/smoking/addiction/any number of lifestyle-related health problems, just that using "they strain the healthcare system" nets in other issues like "what do we do with patients whose mind have gone long before their bodies?"
cwkoss 5y ago
I wonder what effect obesity has on US healthcare costs. What percentage of healthcare premiums are due to serving obese members?
- chucksta 5y ago
  It is substantial; >More recently, Cawley and Meyerhoefer drew headlines with their estimate that obesity accounts for 21 percent of medical spending-$190 billion in 2005-more than double Finkelstein and colleagues’ earlier estimate from MEPS data. (1) Cawley and Meyerhoefer also used MEPS data to make their estimates. But they used a different and potentially more accurate method for calculating costs, called the “instrumental variable approach.” This method takes into account the two-way relationship between obesity and chronic disease, by using a biological child’s body mass index as a surrogate variable for the individual’s body mass index. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi...
TacticalCoder 5y ago
> The key here from a government standpoint is Obesity impacts the life of the obese person only. Not at all. There's a cost to society as a whole and an important cost: it blocks beds in the hospitals, it blocks doctors and an obese person, I take it, does consume more food etc. All these have a cost on society as a whole. Now I'm not saying people shouldn't have a right to smoke, drink alcohol or be obese: that some officials are so dumb they believe the cost of obesity is only to the obese person, I don't doubt it one second. But they're totally wrong. There is an obesity epidemic both in the US and in Europe. The number of obese kids in Europe keeps going up and up. In the mediterannean countries there are up to 21% of the kids of 6 to 9 years that are already obese (Spain / Italy / Greece / Chyprus etc. When I go to Spain it really shows. It's scary. And it's scarier to see what the parents puts in their basket at the grocery store). If you then take into account the fact that something like 92% of the obese kids stay obese their entire life, you understand why it's a very serious public health matter. And if these kids are obese I do believe society, as a whole, has a responsibility. They're being fed junk and hardly anyone cares. Cars are getting safer by the day. The obesity problem is getting worse by the day. It's apple to oranges, but if priorities have to be set I know where I'd set them.
clajiness 5y ago
> The key here from a government standpoint is Obesity impacts the life of the obese person only. This couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you have a source for your claim? Doubtful, but maybe. Per the Harvard School of Public Health: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi... "Excess weight harms health in many ways. It increases the risk of developing conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis, and some cancers, to name just a few, and reduces the life span. Treating obesity and obesity-related conditions costs billions of dollars a year. By one estimate, the U.S. spent $190 billion on obesity-related health care expenses in 2005-double previous estimates. The enormity of this economic burden and the huge toll that excess weight takes on health and well-being are beginning to raise global political awareness that individuals, communities, states, nations, and international organizations must do more to stem the rising tide of obesity." "Days missed from work are a cost to both employees (in lost wages) and employers (in work not completed). Obese employees miss more days from work due to short-term absences, long-term disability, and premature death than non-obese employees. They may also work at less than full capacity (also known as presenteeism)." "Employers pay higher life insurance premiums and pay out more for workers’ compensation for employees who are obese than for employees who are not." It sure sounds like obese folks affect more than just themselves. I'd prefer that my health insurance premiums don't rise more than they have to due to your love of ice cream.
- syshum 5y ago
  Ironicly government is what cases your health insurance to rise due to obese people. Government prevents companies for charging more based on health conditions, except smoking. So a company is prohibited by law from taking obesity into account for premium costs Further I take it then you do support the concept of Limited Government? If this is your metric for what should involve government, then my guess you do not support the idea of Limited Government at all. See when I talk about threats to other, I am talking about direct, articulable threats, not second or third order events that may have an impact under some circumstances When I say the government has an ethical mandate to protect me from others, I mean protect me from physically assaulting me, from stealing my property, etc. Not generalized adverse effects that may happen latter down the road if enough other people also happen to do the same thing.

by syshum 5y ago

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>Government has the ethical mandate to protect you from other citizens, not to protect your from your own bad choices. What about the choices of the food industry?

inglor_cz 5y ago

Even in the U.S., the government would be better off with a leaner population. The government pays some fraction of healthcare (VA, Medicare, Medicaid). Also, the military would like to have a better pool of recruits.

syshum 5y ago
Thank you for highlighting why I will never support government healthcare. I do not wish to live in a world where the government is monitoring and regulating what I have for breakfast, "for my own good" No thank you, I will pass on that kind of dystopia
- Sharlin 5y ago
  I would reply to this, but my government is monitoring my blood pressure and taking me to an intervention camp if it gets too high. (Apologies for the sarcasm.)
- b112 5y ago
  The is a false equivalency. Having the government acting as insurer, has nothing to do with your breakfast.
  - syshum 5y ago
    Did you read the comment I replied to, Their exact statement was that the government has a compelling interest in curbing obesity because they pay for health care.. jeez, context matter.... Further it is completely logical conclusion that if the US government became in insurer, the next step in that would be to attempt mandate health food choices in order to curb runways costs that would result from such a program
    - b112 5y ago
      Your last sentence indicates my statement was relevant. Secondly, the entire West, outside of the US, has state run health care, and in every case: * no one is doing what you suggest * society gets better health care * costs are reduced via so many other means An example? Governments negotiate as large-blocks of purchasers for medication. If corporations do not play ball, then laws can be changed to allow for a reduction in IP rights, length of patents, and so on. Note that this is not some silly "Stop companies from making profit", but instead, "Stop companies from making insane, over the top, crazy profit at the expensive of poor people dying". National governments also counter the above, with a restriction on development costs. For example, state run Universities being used to assist in clinical trials, grants for developing certain types of medication, the goal being to reduce risk/profit cost for drug manufacturers, which cite such high profits as necessary due to development costs. There are so many ways to win/win, without letting people die because they lost their job. There is also a societal balance, and much like stopping companies from dumping toxic waste, or clear cutting forests (instead of selective cuts), the needs of society must be balanced with the needs for free enterprise. This is not anti-profit, any more than not having the lot next to your house, become a dumping ground for nuclear waste. I know all of this seems horrifying, yet bizarrely, the rest of the West seems to handle it quite well. You might also want to ask yourself, who benefits from scare mongering over such things? You benefits from making you think and absurd idea, that your bacon will disappear because the government pays for health care? Who? Oh wait, the for-profit, out of control, massive lobbying health-care providers in the US? Yes, they want you to feel fear.
- soperj 5y ago
  Every Western country on earth aside from the US has public healthcare, none of them monitor or regulate what you have for breakfast.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  The government already regulates what you have for breakfast. Think about how many federal organizations are out there regulating every aspect of food production. The fact that you don't realize this is indicative of how unfounded your fears are about government over-reach. Additionally, the Free Market provides health insurance companies with the power to charge extra who smoke, don't exercise, or otherwise practice unhealthy habits. I have to upload fitness data, get annual physicals, and do a bunch of other little things not required of people on Medicaid. Anti-government people forget that they have a lot more influence over government organizations than they do private ones. If people are pissed at the government, they have elected reps with the power to solve the issue. If they get pissed at a private org, there's not much that can be done unless what they are doing is illegal (even then, it will take years to remedy).
  - syshum 5y ago
    >> The fact that you don't realize this is indicative of how unfounded your fears are about government over-reach. This is very amusing... maybe I do realize it, maybe I believe the government is already over reaching, and maybe, just maybe I oppose many of the things you are talking about. Maybe I do not want to see government expanded even more. >>Additionally, the Free Market provides health insurance companies with the power to charge extra who smoke, don't exercise, or otherwise practice unhealthy habits. Ok, and... You seem to think I would be opposed to this, I am not. I am opposed to government not voluntary exchange. To the extent the government requires insurance or the concept of insurance for healthcare to take place in the US is the core of the problem, not Freed markets. Nothing really in healthcare is free market though, it is ironic that you claim I do not understand the number of regulations on food production,but them proclaim Healthcare and/or Health Insurance are a free market. That is laughable.... >>Anti-government people forget that they have a lot more influence over government organizations than they do private ones. Martin Gilens and Benjamin Paige would disagree with you. Their analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. [1] [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Perhaps the governments of the world should stop subsidizing sugar production... It is not as if we suffer from a lack of cheap sugar, and elimination of such subsidy would not infringe on anyone's privacy or civil rights.

madengr 5y ago

[dead]

mdorazio 5y ago

I don’t really agree with your first point. Obesity puts a huge strain on the healthcare system, increasing wait times and friction for people at a healthy weight who need services. It also increases health insurance premiums on healthy weight people.

chucksta 5y ago
It also skews whats viewed as "normal". Its a lot easier to reconcile you are overweight when you appear to be the same weight as everyone else
celtain 5y ago
I'm not sure this is correct. People who avoid obesity-related health issues often just get old enough to suffer from some other, even more expensive disease. A cancer patient requires more expensive care than a typical diabetic or heart disease patient, and the prolonged costs of caring for someone suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's can be greater still. I'm not saying obesity is good for society (prolonging years of healthy life is a worthwhile goal on its own), but the impact on the healthcare system itself isn't necessarily so simple.
- ultimape 5y ago
  Obesity is a risk factor for many types of cancer and also risk for Alzheimer's because both are tied to the hip with blood sugar problems. Most of the older folks to who get cancer and age related neurodegenerative disease also seem to succumb to age related diabetes symptoms and poor insulin. These things aren't separate-able as cleanly as you suggest.
KittenInABox 5y ago
I thought actually life-cutting health choices like obesity and smoking are actually less strenuous because they die earlier and faster. They're cheaper too because of this in the long run. Not to say that there aren't other reasons why we should combat obesity/smoking/addiction/any number of lifestyle-related health problems, just that using "they strain the healthcare system" nets in other issues like "what do we do with patients whose mind have gone long before their bodies?"

cwkoss 5y ago

I wonder what effect obesity has on US healthcare costs. What percentage of healthcare premiums are due to serving obese members?

chucksta 5y ago
It is substantial; >More recently, Cawley and Meyerhoefer drew headlines with their estimate that obesity accounts for 21 percent of medical spending-$190 billion in 2005-more than double Finkelstein and colleagues’ earlier estimate from MEPS data. (1) Cawley and Meyerhoefer also used MEPS data to make their estimates. But they used a different and potentially more accurate method for calculating costs, called the “instrumental variable approach.” This method takes into account the two-way relationship between obesity and chronic disease, by using a biological child’s body mass index as a surrogate variable for the individual’s body mass index. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi...

TacticalCoder 5y ago

> The key here from a government standpoint is Obesity impacts the life of the obese person only. Not at all. There's a cost to society as a whole and an important cost: it blocks beds in the hospitals, it blocks doctors and an obese person, I take it, does consume more food etc. All these have a cost on society as a whole. Now I'm not saying people shouldn't have a right to smoke, drink alcohol or be obese: that some officials are so dumb they believe the cost of obesity is only to the obese person, I don't doubt it one second. But they're totally wrong. There is an obesity epidemic both in the US and in Europe. The number of obese kids in Europe keeps going up and up. In the mediterannean countries there are up to 21% of the kids of 6 to 9 years that are already obese (Spain / Italy / Greece / Chyprus etc. When I go to Spain it really shows. It's scary. And it's scarier to see what the parents puts in their basket at the grocery store). If you then take into account the fact that something like 92% of the obese kids stay obese their entire life, you understand why it's a very serious public health matter. And if these kids are obese I do believe society, as a whole, has a responsibility. They're being fed junk and hardly anyone cares. Cars are getting safer by the day. The obesity problem is getting worse by the day. It's apple to oranges, but if priorities have to be set I know where I'd set them.

clajiness 5y ago

> The key here from a government standpoint is Obesity impacts the life of the obese person only. This couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you have a source for your claim? Doubtful, but maybe. Per the Harvard School of Public Health: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi... "Excess weight harms health in many ways. It increases the risk of developing conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis, and some cancers, to name just a few, and reduces the life span. Treating obesity and obesity-related conditions costs billions of dollars a year. By one estimate, the U.S. spent $190 billion on obesity-related health care expenses in 2005-double previous estimates. The enormity of this economic burden and the huge toll that excess weight takes on health and well-being are beginning to raise global political awareness that individuals, communities, states, nations, and international organizations must do more to stem the rising tide of obesity." "Days missed from work are a cost to both employees (in lost wages) and employers (in work not completed). Obese employees miss more days from work due to short-term absences, long-term disability, and premature death than non-obese employees. They may also work at less than full capacity (also known as presenteeism)." "Employers pay higher life insurance premiums and pay out more for workers’ compensation for employees who are obese than for employees who are not." It sure sounds like obese folks affect more than just themselves. I'd prefer that my health insurance premiums don't rise more than they have to due to your love of ice cream.

syshum 5y ago
Ironicly government is what cases your health insurance to rise due to obese people. Government prevents companies for charging more based on health conditions, except smoking. So a company is prohibited by law from taking obesity into account for premium costs Further I take it then you do support the concept of Limited Government? If this is your metric for what should involve government, then my guess you do not support the idea of Limited Government at all. See when I talk about threats to other, I am talking about direct, articulable threats, not second or third order events that may have an impact under some circumstances When I say the government has an ethical mandate to protect me from others, I mean protect me from physically assaulting me, from stealing my property, etc. Not generalized adverse effects that may happen latter down the road if enough other people also happen to do the same thing.